latest user's comments

1857? It's 2015.The Christians did the crusades, but modern Christians aren't held accountable because that was a long time ago. you can't really connect the two and say it describes them anymore. As I have stated in a previous post on a similar topic; every religion has had it's bloody moments somewhere, but in modern times most religious terrorism from other groups have been isolated incidents, or even low key. Islamic groups, on the other hand, are committing genocide and massacring innocent men, women, and children. I have nothing against Islam and understand many of them are good people, but it's just straight up denial to say Islamic terror is not one of the most prominent types of terrorism out there right now.

>Crusades
If you didn't know, the crusades were largely a response to the many, many, many, holy wars and invasions upon the christian world by Islamic groups. All of Anatolia (The eastern part of turkey) used to be owned by Byzantium, one of the largest Christian Empires there was, and it's capital city, Constantinople (Now known as Istanbul) was the largest and most advanced city in the middle ages. Islamic invasions took over all of North Africa (Where the Coptic AKA Christian Berbers lived), and most of Spain, not to mention the largest Christian Country possibly ever. Using the Crusades as a moment of "unwarrented Christian Violence" is retarded FYI.

this would be true if it wasn't for the fact that there were multiple crusades and not all of them were the same. The fourth one was definitely the worst one and the reason why the crusades aren't brought up as being a good thing, you know the one where they raped and pillaged because they didn't have the money to actually take Jerusalem.

never said they did, I specifically said they didn't have the money to take Jerusalem. (Money for the ships) the fourth one was still unwarranted christian violence and that is the point i am making. Don't fucking lie to everyone here.

They raped and pillaged another Christian city nonetheless, which is something you conveniently left out. It was because when you group up a bunch of poor soldiers and have them wait inside a city for months without upkeep or provisions, they'll get rowdy. That had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It had to do with a few months of scraps for food and the promise of fighting for their god being denied to them.

I am muslim and i agree 100% with you it is the most prominent but its also but not in all cases because when a muslim does something wrong religion is the 1st thing mentioned and blown up out of proportion pun not intended which they want to happen they want the publicity most of them were found in clubs(boston bomber) or doing drugs(the paris attack which were also orphanes so had a bad life) the day before an attack anyways so there not very religious lol there clearly just a scum bag terrorist lol. i know you wernt saying this but im just saying you dont see leaders of a mosque or big religious figures blowing themselves up just getting the word out. and i love all of you white brown yellow black and no matter what religion fck them blue people though

It should have been painfully obvious that when I said "Clean hands" I was referring to the fact that this religion in particular does not have a purely peaceful history. You twisted my semantics of my statement into something else. I meant I wanted to make sure you didn't think mormons never killed anyone. I am not referring to the expected odd case of a person who happens to be mormon, rather, a group of mormons that had rank in the church who slaughtered people.
As I said before
thisfuckingdense.jpg